objects

But in new UI framework UI objects are indeed mixed up with game objects, and it makes perfect sense: they live in the same space.

Game objects can be 2d, and UI objects can be 3d.

Think about operating on a collection of objects with `map` or `collect` or whatever your favorite language calls it.

Not to mention the object model, where classes are also objects and the Object - Module - Class relationship.

> but in C-family languages, 'const' modifies type, making objects that benefit from the compiler hints 'const' implies type-incompatible with objects that do not.

While I also recoil at the $, I much prefer a functional programming style based on immutable objects.

If it's a second option, who's in charge of counting references to these objects?

What's more, this enforces good object-orientation: this is a reimagining of the single-responsibility principle because closures are objects that literally do one thing.

It turned out to be extremely straightforward to map objects to closures.

And even much later did I really grasp vim's concept of text-objects.

> If it's a second option, who's in charge of counting references to these objects?

Even if final doesn't make objects immutable.

We transmit objects as a literal, or as an algorithm ("a turing machine") of how to recreate the object.

That's what you get when you keep your UI and game objects mixed together in a some sort of "scene".

Actually, KSP uses the old UI framework, where UI objects are "created" every frame.

If Javascript had "classes" earlier than ES6, perhaps the over abundance of informal adhoc "class objects" would have been completely avoided.

From there you want to map Rows into Objects?